……Enemies can bring out the best in us!
by John de Nugent – his passion and views.
The Jews will always be with us as a test: a moral test, and a test of our willpower. Without the Jews there never would have been a national socialism. The Jew, by being a lying, greedy, cruel oppressor, brings out the best in us, the Aryan. We react to him and decide to be the very opposite of the Jew. In this strange way, he is actually useful — hard as that is to imagine.
…..Website visitors around the globe
….Objected to my removing his Facebook post
–I posted something on your wall on how Putin agrees with the Holocaust, and that it happened, and that Jews were innocent and you took it off your wall
The next time, I would like a short greeting first, such as “Hi, John.” I believe in politeness. Even a Facebook “friendship” has rules.
Yes, I did. Sorry, but please try to understand the following, A:
1) remember that this is my FN wall, not yours, and I am not obligated to keep your things up on my wall, nor you to keep my things on your wall. Right?
2) I am someone with extensive overseas interests, perhaps unlike you, interests you are probably unaware of, and there are about 5 million hits today on my name.
3) I have stated one billion times that Putin is a chess player who does not show his real cards, but his overall actions are extremely anti-Jewish. He opposes the Jewnited Snakes, he arms and protects Iran, he arms and protects Syria, and he sells powerful weapons to Venezuela. He works with the BRICS states to undermine the Jewnited Snakes dollar….
If he shakes hands with a rabbi, or maybe, maybe throws three revisionists in jail, and thereby saves 120 million white Russians by avoiding an open war with world Jewry, it is dirty and I hate it. But maybe it was temporarily necessary.
Probably unlike you, however, I am personal friends with many leading revisionists, whom I have met, talked with, stayed in their homes, gotten them needed money, etc.
Some of the many revisionists I am friends with or have helped in important ways:
Comrade, Putin’s Russia was prostrate and on the floor in 2000 when Putin took power, and it still is not ready to take the Jews on.
Those who do, and are unready, end up like Kaddafi and Hitler, dead — and their country a pile of smoldering ruins and all their dream shattered.
Kaddafi with a bayonet shoved up his rectum
Germany in 1945
Finally, Alex, I suggest you read my blog today: http://johndenugent.us/english/support-putin/ [which is this one]. Do not demand the chess player Putin show YOU all his cards.
And most of all, watch what he does, not what he says.
…..Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over
[source:http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2014/10/putin-to-western-elites-play-time-is.html: all photos were added by me, JdN]
….and, chances are, those of you who have heard of the speech didn’t get a chance to read it, and missed its importance. (For your convenience, I am pasting in the full transcript of his speech below.) Western media did their best to ignore it or to twist its meaning. Regardless of what you think or don’t think of Putin (like the sun and the moon, he does not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most important political speech since Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech of March 5, 1946.
In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game. Previously, the game of international politics was played as follows: politicians made public pronouncements, for the sake of maintaining a pleasant fiction of national sovereignty, but they were strictly for show and had nothing to do with the substance of international politics; in the meantime, they engaged in secret back-room negotiations, in which the actual deals were hammered out.
The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin speech as follows:
1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.
2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.
3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia’s decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.
4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.
5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America’s ever-expanding �empire of chaos, and has no interest in building a new empire of her own. (This is unnecessary; Russia’s challenges lie in developing her already vast territory.)
Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.
6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.
Russia’s Sukhoi-34 — their top-of-the-line fighter-bomber:
7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today
Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable,
Russia is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war, nor does she fear it!
8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order –until their efforts start to impinge on Russia’s key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take.
But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests,will be taught the true meaning of pain.
9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia’s power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.
Putin attending a Russian Orthodox church service
JdN: Putin is more popular than ever as a result of standing up to the Jewnited Snakes:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/09/explaining-putins-popularity-rallying-round-the-russian-flag/
…before the seriousness of the crisis in Ukraine was obvious, Putin’s approval rating stood at a solid 64 percent. The most recent reading, from August 2014, put Putin’s approval at a massive (even by his standards) 84 percent.
To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:
10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States –but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements;refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.
To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world?
…..Jew Chess Champion Garry Kasparov Cries That Vladimir Putin Needs to be Stopped
Daily Slave (taken from the DailyStormer (http://www.dailystormer.com/jew-chess-champion-garry-kasparov-cries-that-vladimir-putin-needs-to-be-stopped/)
November 11, 2014
The Jewish chess champion Garry Kasparov is crying about Vladimir Putin and Russia’s shift towards nationalism in an interview conducted by the EU Observer. Even though I certainly don’t agree with all of Vladimir Putin’s statements or policies, Putin is correct to shift Russia on to a more nationalist footing. It is merely a response to the subversive Jewish-led activity that occurred recently in Ukraine.
Nationalism is also an antidote to the subversive internationalist parasite of world Jewry which is probably why Kasparov issobbing about this.
Kasparov even rambles on about Russia resembling Nazi Germany and other nonsense. If a Jew like Kasparov is comparing Russia to Nazi Germany, than Putin must be doing a few things right.
Chess legend Garry Kasparov was once the pride of the Soviet Union.
But 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall he lives in exile, accusing Russian leader Vladimir Putin of strategic failure and the EU establishment of ignorance in its dealings with Moscow.
Kasparov, who spoke to EUobserver on the eve of the Berlin Wall anniversary, said he will never forget the date it fell 9 November 1989 because on that very same day, four years earlier, I had just won the world [chess] championship.
The end of the wall has come to symbolise the end of the Cold War.
But for Kasparov, who gave up chess to become an opposition activist, Europe risks entering another dark chapter in history.
What we are seeing in Russia is a resurgence of imperialism and nationalism in its most dangerous form, he said, comparing Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Putin’s domestic propaganda to Nazi Germany on the eve of World War II.
This Jew is still a diehard communist who wants to see Russia turn back in that direction.
….Chinese LOVE “Putin the Great”
Why Russia’s President Is ‘Putin the Great’ in China
Like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin Is Seen as a Strong Leader Who Isn’t Afraid to Confront the West
By Jeremy Page [Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-russias-president-is-putin-the-great-in-china-1412217002]
Oct. 1, 2014 10:30 p.m. ET
Books about Vladimir Putin far outsell those on other foreign leaders, according to the staff at Beijing’s Wangfujing bookstore.
BEIJINGIn the recommended-reading section of Beijing’s Wangfujing bookstore, staff members have no doubt which foreign leader customers are most interested in: President Vladimir Putin, or “Putin the Great” as some Chinese call him.
Books on Mr. Putin have been flying off shelves since the crisis in Ukraine began, far outselling those on other world leaders, sales staff say. One book, “Putin Biography: He is Born for Russia,” made the list of top 10 nonfiction best sellers at the Beijing Newsnewspaper in September.
China’s fascination with Mr. Putin is more than literary, marking a shift in the post-Cold War order and in Chinese politics. After decades of mutual suspicionand one short border conflict,Beijing and Moscow are drawing closer as they simultaneously challenge the U.S.-led security architecture that has prevailed since the Soviet collapse, diplomats and analysts say.
The former rivals for leadership of the Communist world also increasingly share a brand of anti-Western nationalism that could color President Xi Jinping’s view of the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Beijing accuses Western governments of stirring unrest there, much as Mr. Putin blamed the West for the pro-democracy protests in Kiev that began late last year.
Russia has begun portraying the Hong Kong protests, too, as U.S.-inspired. Russian state-controlled television channels this week claimed that Hong Kong protest leaders had received American training.
The Pew Research Center says China is one of the few countries where popular support for Russia has risen since Moscow’s confrontation with the West over Ukraine –rising to 66% in July from 47% a year earlier.
A poll by In Touch Today, an online news service run by China’s Tencent Holdings Ltd., put Mr. Putin’s approval rating at 92% after Russia annexed Crimea in March.
“Putin’s personality is impressiveas a man, as a leader. Chinese people find that attractive. He defends Russia’s interests,” says Zhao Huasheng, an expert on China-Russia relations at Shanghai’s Fudan University. “Russia and China can learn a lot from each other.”
It is partly realpolitik. Russia needs China’s market and capital, especially as Western sanctions over Ukraine bite, the analysts say, while Beijing sees Moscow as a source of diplomatic support and vital energy resources.
The countries concluded a long-awaited deal in May for Russia to supply $400 billion of gas to China over 30 years. They have forged agreements to build a railway bridge over their common border and an ice-free port in Russia’s far east. They have also unveiled plans to set up ground stations on each other’s land for their satellite global-positioning navigation systems.
Also driving the realignment is rapport between Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi, whose leadership increasingly resembles his Russian counterpart’s charismatic nationalist authoritarianism.
“Putin and Xi Jinping are quite similar,” says Yu Bin, an expert on China-Russia relations at Wittenberg University in Ohio. The leaders are from the same generation, they are both 61,and both want to re-establish their countries as world powers and challenge Western dominance following periods of perceived national humiliation.
Mr. Xi has since made his relationship with Mr. Putin a priority. He chose Russia for his first foreign visit as Chinese president and was one of the few world leaders to attend the Sochi Winter Olympics. Mr. Xi has met Mr. Putin nine times since taking office, most recently at a Central Asian security forum in Tajikistan last month.
“I have the impression we always treat each other as friends, with full and open hearts,” Mr. Xi told Mr. Putin in Moscow last year, according to an official Kremlin transcript. “We are similar in character.”
He told Russian students later that China and Russia were both going through “an important period of national rejuvenation” and had “the best great-power relationship” in the world.
……China and Russia sign SECOND HUGE energy deal!
…..Text of Vladimir Putin’s speech and a question & answer session at the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session in Sochi on 24 October 2014.
It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organizers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organizations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.
An organization and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the Valdai spirit will remain this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.
Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.
Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.
Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants views on some points and differ on others.
As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order and what we are seeing today are events on this scale have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.
The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organizations are also going through difficult times.
Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s founding fathers had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.
The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.
It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.
What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.
But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.
The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called victors in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.
We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.
The very notion of “national sovereignty” became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.
We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.
The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of supra-legal legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that big brother is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.
Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all? Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.
Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.
They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region�s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.
During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.
Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?
As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this.The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.
Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?
What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.
We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.
Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.
Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.
Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish.
The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of it all, of course. In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.
But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.
Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger,” “the free world is under threat,” and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilize. That is what a real mobilization policy looks like.
Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalization based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalization. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalization are visible now in many countries.?? The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries or their regional groups desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies.
The leaders of Russia, India, Brazil, China and South Africa met to create an alternative to the US dollar
I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.
We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.
Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic and political relations. We are counting here on thepragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.
Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.
Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.
Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.
Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.
There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this soft-power resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.
At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules even if they may be strict and inconvenient but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.
Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.
Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defense system.
The REAL purpose is a surprise first strike on Russia by the United States. 1) We launch a surprise attack on Russia, destroying 90% of their missiles:
2) they fire off their surviving 10%;
3) our ABMs shoots down almost all of the 10%. A few million Americans die as a few Russian missiles get through — but Russia is gone.
Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.
Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous.
We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favor of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament but only serious discussions without any double standards.
What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage.
US drops JDAM bombs on an Afghan village: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D_zHRakOXY
Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.
Article on Obama and his use of drones
The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.
Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design “color revolutions” to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.
We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.
Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.
Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.
Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?
Female soldiers in North Korea
President Assad of Syria and family
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.
However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.
Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.
Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.
I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.
I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a green field, especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.
This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.
In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.
This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalization of such new poles, creating powerful regional organizations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centers and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.
I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.
Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but I stress civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow;they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.
Russian-speaking civilians in eastern Ukraine after an Ukrainian Amy artillery barrage
HORRIFIC SCENES OF SENSELESS VIOLENCE TOWARD CIVILIANS AFTER UKRAINIAN ARTILLERY BOMB LUGANSK, ARUSSIAN-SPEAKING CITY IN EASTERN UKRAINEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=padcE_nc664
Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilized way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new “color revolutions” consider themselves brilliant artists and simply cannot stop.
I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organization rules.
I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why what is so scary about it?
And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.
We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.
The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world I want to emphasize this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.
We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.
Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Geez! A politician talking sense! What’s the world coming to?Sadly, I’ve learned by listening to my own politicians (USA) that what they say has only random correspondence to either the truth or what they will actually do.Maybe Putin is different.
Phil Espin said…
I watched the video and read the transcript. Putin came across as an honest man exasperated by the lawless shenanigans perpetrated by and from the USA. I realise its dangerous to take what politicians say at face value and its sensible to judge them by their deeds and not their words. He has shown admirable restraint in eastern Ukraine and I believe him when he says he is not interested in extending a new Soviet-type empire, which is the most dangerous charge being levied in the western media. He is not a new Hitler and needs to do more to speak over the heads of western politicians to western people.The more westerners ( I’m in UK) see him and listen to what he actually says the better.
Doug Darrah said…
Thanks for posting that, Dmitry. Before this post, Paul Craig Roberts (athttp://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10/25/vladimir-putin-leader-moral-world-paul-craig-roberts/) was the only “Western” person to make note of Putin’s speech in the news I allow myself to follow. The blackout related to the Sochi speech is because Putin is the world’s leading statesman, and he is absolutely reviled here for that. (And, yes, the words are VERY strong, and forthright, and simply don’t parse easily to the criminal political class of the West.) Putin hasn’t restored my faith in politics, but he’s definitely wearing the white hat in that strata of human civilization, and his example puts all the others–PARTICULARLY in the West–to shame.
Anonny Moose said…
This was widely reported in New Zealand, and we absolutely got the context and intention.Maybe if you live in the US, the speech didn’t make a ripple, but America is not the world, and there are free-thinkers and responsible media in other parts of the world.
Awesome speech! How can anyone not like Putin?!
A Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet the article says two of them shot down Malaysian airlines flight 117
I suppose the only criticism I could make is Putin’s reference to “interdependence”. I prefer “mutual benefit”.It is true that in my social circles, Putin is demonized…
Phil Butler said…
Bravo, I’ve not read or written a more exacting and meaningful piece concerning where our world is. Putin, by mine and millions of people’s estimation, is the only world leader in decades who truly is for his people. My applause for your having captured the essences of his most recent speech. The world needs serious leadership.
Andrew Ma said…
If someone had posted this and not mentioned it was Putin/Russia, ANYONE would say this guy is spot on about the world…Very poignant points that any country really should take to heart. We all want what’s best for our people, but not at the cost of everyone else. Friday, October 31, 2014 at 9:59:00 AM EDT
V. Arnold said…
The utter demise of U.S. diplomacy before our very eyes is stunning and the rise of a genuine statesman in the name of Russian president Putin is very timely.
The world sorely needs some serious leadership.
Peter Terry said…
It is unfortunate that this speech was not more widely reported in the US media…what Putin says here makes sense. When George W. Bush was President and Americans were acting like bullies, Democrats and other progressives condemned him and his neo-con buddies as fascists and imperialists. But during the years that Barack Obama has been President, when Americans have acted like bullies, Democrats and other progressives have all too often sought to depict the act as a necessary evil at worst or even as a positive good!
The conversation shifted to whether the process followed was optimal, and did not engage with the question of whether unilateral American bullying is right or wrong. Apparently when a Republican President is a bully it is bad and when the Democratic President is a bully it is good. I, for one, would agree with Mr. Putin, that American bullying is not bringing us any closer to global stability and peace, that it is actually having the opposite effect.
Quoting ‘*’ : Friday, October 31, 2014 at 12:23:00 PM EDT above.I don’t trust Wikispooks as a reliable source any more. They have deliberately ‘disappeared’ a lengthy and informative article on NED (National Endowment for Democracy) – essentially a front for CIA and other agencies…see: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/National_Endowment_for_DemocracyNote an empty page…. For the actual truth, detailing the dirty tricks, the overthrows of successive governments, and the sponsorship via so-called ‘NGO’s’ of what is, in essence, US sponsored terrorism…you have to look elsewhere…But even then, see:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Talk:National_Endowment_for_DemocracyEven at Sourcewatch – the ‘real’ history page of the NED has been removed, supposedly ‘for review’: see firstly –
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democracy(And to read the REAL page, you have to click on the ‘discussion’ tab. Clearly Wikispooks and Sourcewatch are potentially being used as covert data collection/propaganda outlets of US intelligence agencies.As the webmaster of the Wikispooks site I take exception to your damaging and deeply uninformed comments.
Wikispooks is a crowd-sourced project with a very small contributor base. It’s genesis and info about those responsible for it are readily available to anyone prepared to look. They hardly fit the profile of spooks – though, as someone well versed in the ways of our Imperial Masters, I accept that we can all be made an offer we CANNOT refuse by them – and that emphatically includes YOU.
I have personally authored over 5,000 of its pages in the past 4 years, but I can’t do it all all. I am doing no more than trying to make hidden and suppressed information available to a wider audience in encyclopedic and semantic format, nothing more. I do it purely as a therapy for the cognitive dissonance generated by 70 years of living under an increasingly absurd, deeply Machiavellian and Orwellian system. I pay for it out of my own meagre resources and I resent being tarred as a possible spook by simpletons – if only because it makes it that much more difficult to attract good authors/editors.
No pages have been “deliberately ‘disappeared'” as you put it. They simply haven’t been created – YET.
And not, unlike ANY other wiki site I know of, Wikispooks publishes weekly backups of the entire site and makes 3 generations of them available for public download so you can publish your own branch/version of it if you feel up to the considerable work involved.
A very interesting speech. It got zero airtime here in Canada.
I searched the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) website, which is the main Canadian news outlet, and it does not appear to have been reported here at all.
Russia can say the game has changed but saying it does not make it so. Until there is a genuine crisis, probably economic, in the close orbit of American power and its financial system,then nothing has changed.
Chillingly accurate. Equally chilling that even here in my neighbouring country (Finland) the mainstream media has not posted a translation of the speech.
Obviously, it makes too much sense, so has to be suppressed. Plotting war and murder for fun and profit is so much more interesting than figuring out mutual agreements on how to deal with the challenges we are facing. Individually, as nations and as species, we are confronted with vast challenges right now. And the majority respond with whipping up delusions in giant scale. Truly a strange time. I don’t think the old solutions are possible anymore. We’re sailing on uncharted waters, and there’s no map or lighthouses that can be trusted. We’re on our own resources. A good place to be.
A comrade wrote:
|John, the analysis you provide in your latest post is, as usual, brilliant! At this point, it should be joyously obvious to every member of this forum, and to every White Nationalist world-wide, that we now have our long-awaited Leader.|
Yes, I feel my time has come. And the Republican dwarves are all gone. McCain is gone, Palin, Romney, Christie, all the fake-conservative, pro-Israel, tax-cuts-for-billionaires RINOs, the Republicans In Name Only.
The only man who will stand up to Frank Davis Junior, the Black Knight, is I. And I have awaited the full crisis to make my move.
The book to electrify the masses and recast our whole struggle in its spiritual dimensions — that is now the key. Do our souls live on if we perish fighting for liberty and our dignity as a race?
People will have to know these things before they face the awesome material power of ZOG. And the answer is in my book.
An Australian comrade wrote, having read my favorable review of the Tom Cruise movieValkyrie [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valkyrie_%28film%29]:
You raise, as always, some thoughtful points, brother Brendon. I think that my record of loyalty to this great man’s values is unmatched, and he was NOT an agent of the British or Jewish network. But that does NOT mean I agree with all his decisions and choices.
The issue is this:
Did Hitler offer to liberate the Eastern Slavs or did he plan to subjugate them?
Unfortunately, comrade, this Wikipedia article on Vlasov is accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vlasov
If Hitler did not like Vlasov, why did he not then work with General Peter (Pyotr) Krasnov, a “White” general who actually became a member of the NSDAP in the early Munich years? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Krasnov)
“White” ( that is, anti-Red and anti-communist) generals Anton Denikin (left-center) and Pyotr (Peter) Krasnov (right-center)
Did he intend a free Russia that would be a partner of Germany postwar — or a slave colony where only certain individual blond Ukrainians and Russians would be taken as children to Germany and “germanized”?
Pregnant Russian married women expecting their next baby, a delightful picture.
Did Hitler ever renounce his Lebensraum policy of seizing giant swaths of Russia and Ukraine for the Reich as agricultural bastions? I am amazed at those who have never read Mein Kampf –– as I have twice, in German and in English, and cover to cover — and yet claim to me Hitler never said this when he did!
In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:
Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation.
The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area�viewing this latter as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics�between our historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence.
The acquisition of new soil for the settlement of the excess population possesses an infinite number of advantages, particularly if we turn from the present to the future … It must be said that such a territorial policy cannot be fulfilled in theCameroons, but today almost exclusively in Europe.
In an era when the earth is gradually being divided up among states, some of which embrace almost entire continents, we cannot speak of a world power in connection with a formation whose political mother country is limited to the absurd area of five hundred thousand square kilometers. … Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. … For it is not in colonial acquisitions that we must see the solution of this problem, but exclusively in the acquisition of a territory for settlement, which will enhance the area of the mother country, and hence not only keep the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of their origin, but secure for the entire area those advantages which lie in its unified magnitude.
And that massive country next door to settle was Russia. Yes, Hitler did a preventive war to prevent Stalin’s own attack, as Russian scholars themselves have revealed in their discussions of the Soviet plan called “Operation Icebreaker” [http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-Who-Started-Second-World/dp/0241126223] Hitler did indeed hit Stalin in June 1941 — before Stalin could hit Hitler in July of that same year — but Mein Kampf came out in 1925, advocating that Germany take land from Russia 16 long years before “Icebreaker.”
A cartoon from 19239 when Stalin and Hitler signed their Non-Aggression Pact
A Russian tank commander in WWII — not blond enough? (from the movie “White Tiger”)
A Russian higher officer
an ad during Soviet times
Yes, Hitler and the Germans were right, some Slavs (Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, etc.) do lie, steal and get drunk. But as we see now, when the full effect of degenerate Jew TV, drugs, divorce, abuse and corruption are everywhere, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Keltic people do all these things as well, and this always happens when morality is destroyed by the Jews, when the family is broken up into feuding individuals, when the man is no longer the respected breadwinner and head of the family but instead becomes a ridiculed, irresponsible buffoon, and when total moral anarchy reigns!
And some, some Slavs have a bit of Mongol blood but western White people are mixed too with all kinds of genes! How many Americans have some Amerindian blood, which isalsoMongolian?!
The fact is that the reason so many German officers turned against this great leader, who had been brilliant from 1933, when he came to power, until 1941, when he invaded Russia, was that he continued a policy of subjugating the Slavs even AFTER Stalingrad.
Hitler had been invincible until Russia, and had fully earned the indescribable gratitude of his German people. He had lifted them from defeat in WWI, political chaos and the Great Depression to wealth, power, honor, freedom and victory.
…..ADOLF HITLER: MY HEART WILL GO ON
…..JUST A FUN VIDEO: GERMAN GIRLS after the staggering military victories of 1939-40
[click on the video]
But come WWII, his own German officers who had fought on the eastern front understood how much the Slavs whom they were fighting also hated communism and the Jews and could be their natural allies. But the most Hitler would do is let the Slavs work behind the lines — as farm or factory labor or as anti-partisan troops, not however as front-line infantry or tank forces directly fighting the Soviets. After a while, he let a relatively small Ukrainian SS arise. But he did not want to arm the Slavs because he intended that the Russians have no say in postwar affairs in their own country. If they did not fight for Germany, they could not have a seat at the table.
What Hitler said to Leon Degrelle, a Belgian volunteer who wanted to hear pan-Europeanism, and what he did are two different things. L�on Degrelle asked him if he felt more German or more European. Hitler answered: “I am a Hellene.” This meant he identified with Ancient Greece and the highest expressions of European culture. But that did not include the Slavs.
Tragically, this entire page from our white brothers at VHO in Europe (affiliated with Germar Rudolf) is accurate, on the topic of
|New Aspects of Andreij Vlassov
The Russian Army of Liberation (ROA) Corrective Revision by Russian Historians
by the distinguished writer Wolfgang Strauss, and especially this quote:”The reasons for the delay [in setting up this Russian Liberation Army], he tells us, were the crassly differing and often diametrically opposed views of Third Reich leaders regarding their Eastern policy. Until the turning point in the Fall of 1944, the ROA [Russian National Army] consisted almost solely of individual Russian units in the Wehrmacht. It was not until the catastrophic military situation on the Eastern Front had become clear to everyone, that the decision was finally made to create a politically autonomous Russian central command and organize powerful Russian combat units under Russian commanders.”And this quote is also accurate:”Drobjasko describes the ROA’s heavy weapons in detail: heavy artillery, anti-aircraft artillery, as well as the training schools for officers and noncoms, the training camps, even press relations (there was no German censorship). Colonel Meandrow served as commander of the officers school. When he was captured in August of 1941, interrogating officer Herre of the German General Staff asked his opinion about whether Soviet resistance would soon collapse. Meandrow, Chief of Staff of an entire Soviet corps, replied:
Mobilize the Russians against Stalin! At the end of 1944 it was already too late.”
I, and resolute national socialist such as Roy Armstrong, Manfred Roeder of Germany and others with decades of sacrifice, veterans of street battls and even prison, all acknowledge that Hitler was anti-Russian, anti-Slav and that he “blew” his one chance to defeat the Jews and Stalin by his overreaching goal of winning the war without arming the Russians — because he wanted their land.
The Russians are a white people. Hitler’s choice was morally wrong and strategically wrong.
One can, and I do, admire to the supreme level the genius, altruism and vision of Adolf Hitler in his social policies and pan-Aryan values.
But when he left the solid foundation of pan-Aryanism and retreated into narrow German nationalism, he lost the war.
I for one was disappointed in his Political Testament, because it spoke ONLY of ‘Germany this’ and ‘Germany that.’ What about the rest of us Whites, facing after 1945 a world that would be totally Jew-ruled?
I say all these things to you, comrade, with unspeakable sadness.
WE COULD HAVE WON THE WAR.
If a new Hitler arises for our race,
he will learn from the mistakes of the past,
and have the broadest possible pan-Aryan vision.
And he will SEEK an alliance with the great white nation called Russia.
And so in answer to your question, Hitler was absolutely sincere, and never a tool of the Jews or Wall Street. But in the East he was very wrong. Nevertheless, who can match what he DID achieve against all odds? He was an incredible, brave, visionary Aryan genius. If there is any chance of “reincarnation,” then he will come back chastened.
As I wrote on Facebook:
It is sad to see this: “The Russian Lower House has approved a bill that provides up to five years in prison for denying the facts set out in the Nuremberg Trial, rehabilitation of Nazism and distributing false information about the actions of Russia and its allies during WWII.”http://rt.com/politics/154332-russia-nazi-rehabilitation-ban/
BUT as I have often written, this is the latest bitter fruit of Hitler’s slavophobia. Had heinvaded the USSR to liberate its peoples in 1941 from the Jews, Georgians and Bolsheviks….
Two Georgian Bolsheviks, Stalin and Beria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria), in 1936. They both used Jews as their main human weapon of mass murder to annihilate every Russian with any intelligence or backbone.
…..he would have gotten the support of 100 million suffering Slavs. Twice Hitler rejected the proposal of General Vlasov to create a 5-million-man “Russian National Liberation Army” — even after the disaster at Stalingrad. http://johndenugent.us/…/russian-women…
No one is more pro-Hitler than am I, and I have proved this in literally HUNDREDS of blogs, essays, and speeches. But Hitler went into Russia to conquer it for Germany, exactly and precisely as he stated in “Mein Kampf” 17 years before, to take “Lebensraum” for GERMANS from it — and not to liberate Russia and make this gigantic nation Germany’s ally.
So, to this very day, even very, very pro-German Russians like Putin do not like Hitler or his movement. And thus this legislation is being passed. I say today that the new national socialism must be for all races, white and non-white, and all peoples around the world that are threatened by Jewry. And this is the only way we can win, and this is how we WILL win! The whole world now hates the Eternal Wall Street, bloodsucking JEW!
Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere! No man is free if another is a slave!
Not just Hitler, but most Germans and even many Anglo-Saxons disliked Russians or saw them as brutal semi-barbarians, so Hitler was a creature of his times, his generation a nd the mindset of his era. Also, he feared the pan-Slavic movement, which was a real threat to Germany, and led the Russian tsar foolishly to end his alliance with Germany, which Bismarck had wisely created to the benefit of both countries, and the tsar allied his nation with France and Britain to seek war with Germany in WWI..The pan-Slav goal was to push the Germans behind the Elbe River, and reverse 1,000 years of German history of eastern expansion, that is, restricting them to western Europe. British and French intelligence funded this movement heavily as a means to pit Russia against Germany and Austria-Hungary...The goal of the last tsar was to push Germany back westward to the year 1000 and unite all the Slavs of Europe..So Hitler was not “crazy” as a German leader to fear pan-Slavism — it was a huge movement and fundamentally anti-German..But in the struggle against Bolshevism he should have changed course, because “the enemy (Slavs) of my enemy (the Jews) is my friend.” As we know, the outcome of the war was not Germans in Moscow but Russians in Berlin..Russian soldier raises Soviet flag over the Reichstag in Berlin in 1945German woman wanders about devastated after being raped by Soviet troops; two million German women suffered this horrific fate.
John D. Nugent And as the Americans showed after 1945, via NATO, a “liberating” superpower can bind the countries it has liberated to it, and not even with open brutality. Germany could have liberated Russia and yet 1) installed a pro-German elite atop the new Russia and 2) integrated the German and Russian economies and 3) cultures so that Russia would never turn anti-German again..Russians admire Germans anyway for their hard work and brilliant organization, and not only that — there would have also been tremendous gratitude by Russians toward Germany for ending the genocidal nightmare of Bolshevism..I translated for The Barnes Review magazine almost the entirety of this 55-page monograph by German historian Udo Walendy on Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 700-page book of suffering, Two Hundred Years Together, volume two, which was on how the Jews treated the Russians under Bolshevism. Every Russian family suffered disappeared relatives; Solzhenitsyn says 60 million were murdered.
Russia and the Jews (I translated 90% of the main article.)Here Solzhenitsyn is greeted by President Putin at his home. Putin awarded him in 2007 thehighest medal of Russia. This was the second visit by Putin to Solzhenitsyn’sdacha(country home) outside Moscow.So a liberated Russia would have been a pro-German Russia.My view of Putin: not an angel, not a devil, nor a great visionary or world leader, but a noble gangster, a clever man, who does the right thing when he can afford to, but does not want to openly confront the Jews, at least NOT YET, and end up as Hitler or Khaddafi did:http://johndenugent.us/?s=putin